Oklahoma Farm Bureau
Surging home insurance costs could force families to leave these 10 states (OK is one)
- Thread starter chuter
- Start Date
I don't see a parallel. Healthcare is not mandated by ERs, Dr.s, etc. you can pay out of pocket, many times at much lower costs than the insurance company is billed. State and Federal insurance programs can dictate who you see, but not the costs for the service. And frankly, most of the people on Medicaid (Soonercare) aren't paying for it anyway. That's taxpayer dollars.
Medicaid has nothing to do with the discussion or really even Obamacare.
To bridge the gap here, the Affordable Healthcare act forces insurance carriers to provide coverage in several ways. For instance, they cannot turn you down because of your health. They cannot underwrite risk, they must provide coverage. Now keep that in your back pocket for a movement.
In the scenario where you want insurance companies to be forced to insure your house, who would enforce that? .Gov that's who. Essentially, if you really want the government to start dictating that insurance companies must cover houses in tornado alley, get ready for even higher premiums.
In essence, any time the government gets more involved in a sector then it becomes extremely costly and inefficient to say the least. Again, I'm not sure why this isn't obvious.
It's obvious you're either obtuse, or basically not informed enough to understand the comparison I'm making. All you know is that you want the government to save you from an insurance carrier from canceling your coverage. It's the same basic arguments that the democrats made to pass the ACA. You want the government to fix your problems you have put yourself in.
As far as the red herring of Medicaid and the ACA, one must understand the bigger picture. I'm talking about government involvement in the private sector, to which Medicare is not a true part of. Maybe from a provider sense, but either way, it's also a government program. From a health industry standpoint, the ACA destroyed personal and small group insurance pools. Pools that offered reasonable coverage at prices people could manage. Which is far more significant than medicare implications, but again that doesn't matter either. My point, to which you cannot understand or completely ignore (probably because you'd have to admit leftist thoughts) is that when the government gets involved in business, finance, or even insurance...... it fawks it up.
yet theses same banks are FDIC insured. I bet you sure like that. I'll take the name calling and "that's not the part I was talking about" comments. As a healthcare provider in one of the few places that takes Medicaid, I do understand the ACA. But your comparison is apples and oranges. I can be uninsured for my health,. I can pay cash for my healthcare at a significantly lower rate than if insured. I would lose my house if I couldn't get insurance due to not being able to afford the exorbitant costs associated with bank provided insurance or the the higher costs from other companies due to my credit score taking a hit after a cancellation.
I'm fine with it. The banks pay for it.
Not really, one has to understand and accept that government dictating insurance coverage muddies the water and causes costs to go up. You want to obsess about medicaid for some reason, as if that's the only part of healthcare the ACA affected. Since you take Medicare, you might be one of the few benefitting from the ACA, hence your refusal to acknowledge it's a POS law. However I'll let you explain your view on that before I assume.
Only if you're healthy, but sure you have that option. You can be uninsured for your house too if you don't finance it.
True, but the costs are still ridiculous and got significantly worse after the ACA passed.
Just as you can pay cash for your healthcare, you can pay cash for your house too. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you borrow money to buy a house.
Again, you compare apples and oranges. Houses don't cost 10K. Apparently we weren't all born into rich families that can afford to put that kind of cash down on a home, so kudos to you for that. You're arguments and reasoning are pointless because the money involved in each situation is nearly the same. I'm all for capitalism until you put expensive stipulations on it that obviously only benefits one party. Call me what you want, but if the playing field isn't level then something needs to be done.
If you say you work in healthcare how can you be this naive? or are you doing it on purpose? My last ER visit where I had a blood clot was 40k. Eliquis is ~$600 a month if I paid out of pocket. How much does insulin run a month on cash? I mean, I could go on and on but should I have to?
Just in premiums alone.
https://www.heritage.org/health-car...ubled the Cost of,increase) from 2013 to 2019.
Then again, you may have an income reason for your bias. However, most people understand that Obamacare was garbage and only raised costs, and altered coverage for most, if not deleted coverage. Yeah, let's involve .gov in another aspect of our life. They will "level the playing field" for us!!
God I wish lol.... but sorry to disappoint. I could assume the same about you I guess? How many people can afford to self insure a family for healthcare? Hell how many times could a normal family pay cash for for just a normal child birth? God help you if anything goes remotely wrong because you'll be paying a LOT more than a mortgage for a family of 4-5.
I HAVE however seen more than a few people on this board talk about saving enough money to pay cash for their house. I don't believe they were wealthy but could be?
Let's play out your scenario since you think it's so logical and fair. Let's say the government will not allow banks to require insurance to protect their asset. A practice that is extremely common in banking, be it commercial or personal. How many mortgage companies/banks would stop lending you figure? or at the very least tighten lending? How many would provide a basically unsecured loan on a 250-300k house? Now, I wonder if rates would go up as a whole on those that would actually lend? So we would have a much smaller pool to borrow money from with higher rates. Sounds extremely familiar to life after Obamacare eh?
History and past experience would tell us that's a more than reasonable assumption. But Oh wait!! .gov will come in and save us! Maybe they will put pressure on the lenders to give us money. Ya know..... "level the playing field" lol. So now we have .gov in mortgage lending.... more than they already are that is.......what could ever go wrong?
Let's take that scenario vs....... what happens in the real world currently. State Farm drops you on your insurance renewal for your home. You want the government to save you here, but no help Comrade! You must choose from:
AAA
Allstate
Farmer's
Progressive
SafeCo
USAA
Traveler's
CHUBB
PURE
Openly
Liberty Mutual
Mercury
AIG
Encompass
Hanover
Hartford
National General
Vault
Nationwide
And wouldn't you know it.....this isn't even a complete list.
I wished I had this many choices in my healthcare coverage.
Anyone who thinks the government should step in and “fix” the problem when prices are too high is not a student of history.
